"Fair Use" copyright ruling

by OrphanCrow 9 Replies latest jw friends

  • OrphanCrow

    The decision to allow fair use of copyrighted material could have an impact on the WTS' attempts to use copyright laws to pull content that is critical of them.
    It is ironic that this ruling was made in response to one of Prince's songs.

    (this article was posted on exjwreddit)

    Demand that mother remove home video from YouTube backfires

    A music company’s demand that YouTube take down a 29-second home video of two children dancing to a song by Prince backfired Monday when a federal appeals court used the case to make it harder for copyright-holders to act against brief, non-commercial uses of their material.
    Recording companies, motion picture studios and other copyright owners issue numerous takedown notices each day, targeting everything from home videos to campaign ads that include segments of songs or newscasts. When a copyright-holder tells a website like YouTube that one of its postings violates the holder’s exclusive rights to license the material, federal law requires that the posting be removed immediately.
    But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the copyright-holder must first consider whether such a video amounts to “fair use” of the work, making it eligible to be legally posted. Fair use includes journalistic accounts and criticism, educational uses for teaching or research, and brief, private postings that don’t damage the commercial market for the work.
    The law “requires copyright-holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification,” and those that fail to do so can be held liable for damages,
    said Judge Richard Tallman in the 3-0 ruling, the first on the issue by any appeals court.
    The court upheld a decision by a federal judge in San Jose allowing Stephanie Lenz, who posted the video of her children, to go to trial against Universal Music Corp., which was hired to enforce Prince’s copyrights. The company’s takedown order kept Lenz’s video off YouTube for about six weeks in 2007.
    The ruling “sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech,” said Lenz’s lawyer, Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.
    “Congress gave copyright-holders extraordinary power to send an e-mail and take content offline,” McSherry said. “With that kind of power comes responsibility to consider whether the posting was authorized.”
    Representatives of Universal Music Corp. could not be immediately reached for comment. Music and motion picture industry groups filed arguments supporting the company.

  • EdenOne

    Very interesting ... this may get some wind off the wings of the Borg.


  • Londo111
    That's really good news!
  • OrphanCrow

    I have always thought that the WTS whining about copyright violations didn't really have much legal substance. They have been able to just simply make requests for removal and have not been challenged for requesting removal in the first place. It is good to see that "The law “requires copyright-holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification,” and those that fail to do so can be held liable for damages".

    Maybe the WTS will think twice about their whining over fair use of copyrighted malterial if it could cost them some money.

  • Vidiot

    Sure, they'll "consider" whether or not it constitutes "fair use"...


    ...then they'll decide it doesn't and demand it be take it down, anyway.

  • EndofMysteries
    Are those who originally came up with the 1914 date that Russell stole from, if that group is still around then maybe they can force the WT to remove it's 1914 doctrine and teaching as being copyright and back pay for the past 100+ years of money they lost out on it's commerical use w/ the donations :)
  • neat blue dog
    neat blue dog
    Everything made before 1923 is in the public domain, so no that wouldn't work 😄
  • LisaRose

    There are a lot of grey areas when it comes to copyright infringement and the internet. The national Geographic has been suing over an internet meme called socially awkward penguin. They claim the photo belonged to them, so everyone that used the photo was violating their copyright. The problem is it's been posted and reposted by so many people. And if someone adds text and effects, can it really still be called their product?

  • Wasanelder Once
    Wasanelder Once
    Prince is notoriously ardent in stomping out the unauthorized usage of his music by others. I had a video taken down years ago because his people are vigilant to find abusers. I am not surprised he demanded the unauthorized use of his music be removed and the video deleted.
  • Vidiot

    Prince thinks far too highly of himself.

    I'm sure converting to the JWs did nothing to mitigate that.

Share this